Prince Harry in yet another step too far

I suppose the publishers of his memoir wanted as much drama, controversy and secret stuff as possible to turn Prince Harry's ghost-written memoir into a bestseller. Fair enough, that's normal. But this is Prince Harry, a member of the Royal Family. How many indiscretions should he include before the whole thing just becomes tacky, creepy, embarrassing and awful. Congratulations, Harry, all the leaked excerpts I have read in the newspapers have shown beyond doubt that "Spare", the title of his recollections in anger and bitterness, is tacky, creepy, embarrassing and awful. But it will of course makes pots of money. He has already gone too far in revealing all the details of his breach with members of the Royal Family, especially his brother Prince William. But his boast about killing 25 Taliban in Afghanistan is a gross step too far. I have worked as a journalist with the military, British, American and others over many years and no one ever boasted to me how many of the "enemy" they had killed. It's just not something the military talks about, although there are exceptions to this. In the Second World War, RAF Spitfire pilots used to return to base and make claims about shooting down a certain number of German aircraft. But even then it wasn't a case of them boasting about killing German pilots. Special forces raids in Afghanistan by American, British and other coalition units used to include body counts. And of course details of enemy troops killed and wounded in wars are an accepted and acceptable way of demonstrating progress and achievement. But for an individual soldier to tell the world he managed to kill 25 enemy soldiers is definitely creepy and makes it sound like killing as an act itself is noble and praiseworthy. It's also inappropriate for a single soldier to make such a claim when he was part of a much larger force engaged in trying to improve the life of the average Afghan. Overall the claim by Harry made me feel uncomfortable. Why on earth did he include it in his memoir? To sensationalise and make money of course.

Sending Bradley fighting vehicles to Ukraine is a big deal

The Biden administration's decision to send 50 Bradley armoured fighting vehicles to Ukraine is, like the dispatching of Patriot missiles, a hugely significant move. Bradleys are not tanks but they can still be used to attack Russian tanks and they can ferry Ukrainian troops around the battlefield in a far more efficient and protective way than they are at present. Bradleys are being replaced by the Pentagon but they are still an excellent combat-proven armoured vehicle and will make a noticeable difference in Ukraine. The decision also makes it more likely that Biden will eventually give in to the constant pressure from President Zelensky and agree to send Abrams battle takes to Ukraine. This would be an even more significant development. Were the US to send the gas-powered Abrams tanks to Kyiv it would be tantamount to Washington saying to Moscow that the intent of the White House is for Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion force, not just help Zelensky to defend itself. Sending Bradleys is the first step in this developing Washington strategy. Putin will take note I am sure. The signalling going on between Washington, Kyiv and Moscow, is getting more blatant as each day passes. If the war is not over by the end of this year I can foresee dramatic changes on the battlefield, with US tanks, fighter aircraft and armed drones playing a key role. That indeed would be a full proxy war between the US, backed by Nato allies, and Putin.

Everyone wants a HIMARS

Nato’s supply of weapons to the Kyiv government to fight the Russians has led to an arms bonanza for western defence industries. For certain systems the US is almost on a war footing for arms production not only to ensure Ukraine gets what it needs, but also to restock dwindling inventories of battlefield weapons required for potential future conflicts. In more than ten months of fighting in Ukraine, the US and allies have contributed hundreds of thousands of tons of weapons and munitions to Kyiv, and many of the most advanced systems have become a byword for combat capability. As a result, with Ukraine becoming a showcase for such weapons, the US , in particular, has been inundated with requests for arms deals from around the world. The agreement to sell the much-touted long range M142 high mobility artillery rocket systems (HIMARS) to Australia is just the latest boon for the US defence industry. Estonia signed a $200 million contract last month to buy six HIMARS launchers with deliveries due next year. It was Estonia’s largest-ever arms procurement programme. Two other Baltic countries, Lithuania and Latvia, are also involved in buying HIMARS, and Poland is planning to order a second batch of these Ukraine-war-proven rocket systems. The Polish government first ordered HIMARS in 2019. Only Russia has used the war to try out its most exotic weapons, launching a number of Kinzhal hypersonic missiles from MiG-31 aircraft in August but to little effect. The US and Nato allies, however, have focused on systems that would have greatest impact both for protecting Ukraine’s military and critical infrastructure and attacking Russian warfighting assets. These are the weapons which have attracted most attention in the arms-exporting world. US companies such as Lockheed Martin, makers of HIMARS, and Raytheon with Norwegian firm Kongsberg, joint manufacturers of the national advanced surface-to-air missile system (NASAMS) , have benefited to the tune of billions of dollars as a consequence of the war in Ukraine. The UK government has sent so many of its Swedish/British next generation light anti-tank weapons (NLAW) to Ukraine it has had to place a £229 million order for fresh supplies. The priority given to armed drone warfare by both Russia and Ukraine has also generated world-wide interest. Turkey’s relatively cheap , long-endurance Bayraktar TB2 drones supplied to Kyiv played a crucial role in the successful strikes on advancing Russian tanks in the early phase of the war. Turkish drone production lines have been busy ever since.

Election deniers rule the roost in the House of Representatives

Underlining the political chaos after the failure of Kevin McCarthy to win the role of Speaker in the House of Representatives in the first round it has been revealed that 12 out of the 20 Republican dissenters who voted against him are 2020 election deniers. In other words, they support the Donald Trump position that he was robbed of the election prize and Biden should never have been president. These 12 people - nine men and three women - scuppered McCarthy's chances of sitting in the Speaker chair vacated by the illustrious Nancy Pelosi. It does seem incredible that in a democracy like the United States there are so-called representatives of the American people who claim to be democratic yet reject one of the main tenets of democracy, that a free and accountable vote elects the leader of the country. These 12 people must have given Trump new encouragement that perhaps he can after all win back the White House in 2024. Meanwhile they have disrupted the House to such an extent that no one knows who is going to be the next Speaker. You could argue that this is good for the Democrats and bad for the Republicans who are supposed to be in charge of the House after the results of the midterm elections in November. But it's actually a disaster for both parties and therefore the Biden administration. It shows that the Republicans are severely divided but that means it will be even more difficult for Biden to get legislation through the House in the next two years because the Republicans will be spending most of their time in-fighting. The one possible good bit of news for Biden is that when he eventually announces he is planning to stand for a second term he will be able to claim the Republicans are simply not ready or able to return to power as a united party.

Putin to blame for the 400 Russian reservist troops killed in Makiivka?

When Vladimir Putin called up 300,000 reservists in September to fill the casualty gaps on the battlefield in Ukraine, western commentators concluded they would be cannon-fodder for Kyiv's Nato-backed armed forces. So it has proved. If it is true that 400 of these newly-trained reservists have been killed by being caught all together in one building next to an ammunition dump in Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, then it shows how little the Kremlin cares about the mobilised troops sent to keep Putin's war going. For Russian commanders to think it's sensible to put so many soldiers into one building and then to allow them all to use their cell phones, sending up a mass of "come-and-get-me" signals to Ukrainian gunners, beggars belief. Moscow insists "only" 63 Russian soldiers were killed in the huge HIMARS rocket attack on the building in the city of Makiivka. But all the reports from the Kyiv authorities and from angry Russian military bloggers indicate that the casualty toll was much higher. Indeed the building was demolished and there must be dozens of bodies buried under the rubble. My first reaction was, how scandalous that so many Russian troops were all gathered together under one roof without any protection, offering an easy target for the American-supplied HIMARS rockets. Yet another example of Russian command negligence. My second reaction was, how desperately tragic that these Russian soldiers, dragooned into fightng a war their leader, and only their leader, wanted to pursue, died becasue of the criminal neglect by their commanders. Perhaps the commanders died, too. War is always tragic and I feel nothing but sadness that 400 more lives may have been lost. Probably the majority of those who died were unremarkable Russians with families back home, not the rapists and looters and butchers we have read so much about in the last ten months. They were trained for war but may have died without firing a shot. It's a coup for the Ukrainian military, a victory of sorts and a massive blow to the Russians. But it is also another desperately sad example of the pointlessness of war.

Does Biden actually want Ukraine to defeat Russia?

It's a big question which must have been discussed within the White House National Security Council many times. First, is it feasible for Ukraine to win a total victory against the Russian invasion force, driving them out of Ukraine AND out of Crimea, returning every inch of territory back to Kyiv? Realistically this seems a remote possibility. With Russia's firepower, never-ending troop reserves and Putin's determination to conquer or destroy Ukraine, such a victory would take years of fighting and there would be nothing left. A Pyrrhic victory. But what if Ukraine, backed by longer-range Nato weapons, manages to make life so difficult for the Russian troops in Ukraine, and adds to Putin's woes by dramatically stepping up attacks on targets inside Russia, that victory of sorts can be claimed by Kyiv. Would Putin be forced to backtrack in some way? This is the moment when the question in the headline comes to the fore. Would Putin become more dangerous if facing "defeat" and would the US and Europe suffer long-term as a result? Some might argue, wouldn't it be better, surely, for there to be a negotiated peace when both sides can claim something? And if this were to happen, could Russia/Putin be returned to the international family of nations and participate in global issues once again? Russia back in the G20 etc. None of these questions have satisfactory answers because the other argument is that Russia and Putin should be punished for attacking Ukraine and fully held to account. Putin in absentia found guilty of war crimes? That's what Ukraine wants but if it were to happen there would not be any hope of reconciliation between Moscow and the western world, and that would have high risks. What seems like a long time ago there was talk in Washington and in Nato about the need to give Putin a way out. In other words, some way of ending the war without totally humiliating the Russian leader. It's all too late for that now. How could it be morally right to let the man who is destroying Ukraine's civilian infrastructure to be allowed to take a prize home and carry on as if nothing has happened? So perhaps the answer really is for Russia to be defeated in this war. In which case the US and Nato have no choice but to give Ukraine everything they need to win this victory: tanks, fighter aircraft, long-range missiles and rockets. That would be war on a different scale. But how would Putin react to that? That's the question to which even the brightest members of Biden's national security team cannot have a definitive answer. So at least for the next six months, the war in Ukraine is going to be about stalemate and drift and uncertainty until Biden and Nato decide whether to go all-out for Russia's defeat or continue to hold back, as they are right now.

Lots of reasons why Biden might not want to stand again

I'm not saying Joe Biden won't stand again. In fact I am pretty sure he will and we will know for sure when he makes his announcement in the next few weeks. However, there are many reasons why he might not want to hold one of the toughest political jobs in the world for another four years. First, he will be approaching 82 during the most critical and exhausting part of the presidential campaign. At that age there will surely come moments when he might wish he could go home and put his feet up and watch some rubbish tv rather than prep for yet another boring rallying speech. Age is a defining thing even when you think you are the youngest octogenarian on the planet. Biden can, let's face it, look pretty dogdery on occasions. But he defnitely won't want to decide against standing because of his age. There would have to be other reasons and here they are: the war in Ukraine will get tougher and more dangerous for the world as 2023 progresses and if it's still going on in 2024, Biden may find his whole time will be taken up with trying to bring the slaughter to an end without risking a Third World War. He's doing that now but this challenge will get more and more complex and threatening the longer the war lasts. Will he be able to face the stresses and strains of confrontation with Putin as he begins a new presidential term in January 2025? Then there's the prospect of having his legislative programme over the next two years hammered into the ground by the Republicans who take majority control of the House of Representatives next month. Two years of wrangling with Congress will be exhausting, frustrating and possibly demotivating. Another thought is that if Biden decides against standing again he can spend his time safeguarding his legacy as a one-term president without putting it all at risk by having another four years. Right now his presidency has enough going for it to guarantee him a pretty decent legacy. His uniting of Nato against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the chunk of legislation he managed to get through Congress and his general niceness should all help to give him a decent send-off after four years in the White House but might not last into another four years. I'm sure Biden and his whole family are going over the same arguments at this very moment but in the end the current president will more than likely want to be the next president.